Legal Opinion
Barney v. Tontine Surety Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided June 24, 1902No. Docket No. 53PublishedCited by 8 opinions
Error to Wayne; Donovan, J. Assumpsit by Daniel D. Barney against the Tontine Surety Company of New Jersey on certain tontine diamond contracts. From a judgment for defendant on verdict directed by the court, plaintiff brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtHooker, C. J.
The plaintiff was a'party to four contracts with an alleged concern calling itself the Tontine Surety Company, all substantially alike, of one of which the following is a copy:
*193‘ ‘ Incorporated under the Laws of the State of Michigan.
“ Series 21. Numbers 15, 16, 17, and 18.
“The Tontine Surety Company.
“Home Office, Whitney Opera House Block,
“Detroit, Mich.
“Capital Stock, $50,000.00.
“ Diamond Investment Contract'.
“ This Contract is One of a Series of Contracts of Like Tenor, Numbered from 1 to 100.
“Knowall men by these presents that in consideration of D. D. Barney, of Flint, Michigan, the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- De Wolf v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1825
- Whitcomb v. JoslynSupreme Court of Vermont · 1878
- Whitwell & Hoover v. EmoryMichigan Supreme Court · 1853
- Low v. Estate of MusseySupreme Court of Vermont · 1863
- Lamoille County National Bank v. BinghamSupreme Court of Vermont · 1877
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Plitt v. KaufmanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1947
- Edwards v. Michigan Tontine Investment Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1902
- Central Holding Co. v. BushmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1927
- Tuxedo Enterprises, Inc. v. Detroit Trust Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1935
- Lenart v. RagsdaleMichigan Court of Appeals · 1986
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.